Wednesday
May262010
Public school? Private school? Homeschooling? Unschooling?
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
I want to preface this post by saying that I am not an expert in the field of education. I have done some research on this topic, but it is not comprehensive and may not even be representative. However, my readers have been asking me for a long time to share my thoughts on this topic and those requests have increased since we began our temporary stay in Germany, where homeschooling is illegal. In the interest of full disclosure, as this may colour my thoughts on the issue, I went through the public school system in Quebec and we have chosen a small private language-focused preschool/elementary school for our children, which our son has attended for the past three years and where our daughter will be starting this September.
Because this will influence much of what I say in this post, I should start with my thoughts on the right and the duty to learn.
I believe in and support the Convention on the Rights of the Child's recognition of every child's right to a free education. I believe that every child should have the opportunity to learn the basic things that they need to function in society. This includes, in my mind, practical skills like reading and math, but it also includes knowledge of the natural world, history, cultures, and societal issues. It includes learning and retaining facts, but also learning how to solve problems, debate issues, and apply critical thinking.
I also believe in the duty to learn. I do not think that ignorance is bliss. I believe that ignorance is dangerous and destructive. I believe it is each person's civic duty to learn certain things, whether they want to or not. I believe this is good for them and essential for a functioning society. I do not, however, believe that everyone has to learn everything that is currently taught in the current public school curriculum. Nor do I believe that people who successfully graduate from the public school system actually retain everything that is taught as part of its curriculum.
These thoughts on the right and duty to learn have a significant influence on my opinion of different education options for our children.
I have a love/hate relationship with schools. This is coloured by my own experience in school, my son's experience so far, and the reading I've done on the topic of schooling.
I love that schools:
I hate that schools:
These are, of course, generalizations based on my experience with schools where I live. I know that this does not apply all of the time to all types of schools, although I suspect most of these things apply most of the time. Private schools and alternative schools (sometimes public, sometimes private) are popping up in a lot of areas attempt to capitalize on the strengths of schools and address their weaknesses. However, it only goes so far.
While I used the term homeschooling in the title of this post, which is the most common term used in North America, after much consideration I chose the term home education for the title of this section. It is the term used in the United Kingdom and, in my mind, conceptually does a better job of incorporating the wide spectrum of home education options, ranging from homeschooling according to a specific curriculum all the way to pure unschooling. Another term that is used by some is life learning, which applies to children but also to adults and signifies the importance of learning being a life long process.
I don't have a love/hate relationship with home education in the same way that I do with schools. Perhaps this is because I don't have any direct experience with home education as the primary education of myself or my children. That said, I am passionate about life learning for myself and hope to be able to offer my children many opportunities to pursue their interests. Despite not having a specific love/hate relationship with home education, there are things about home education that I think are inspiring and there are things about home education that concern me.
Before I list those things, I want to address briefly some of the reasons that people choose home education. Both my experience with home educators and my research on home education (one good example) has suggested that there are two, or maybe three, primary motivations for choosing home education. The first is ideological. This is where parents embrace a different ideology than is taught in the curriculum and object to the curriculum because it doesn't teach enough about their own ideology and/or teaches things that are directly contrary to that ideology. The second reason for home educating is pedagogical. This is where the parents believe the structure or curriculum of the public education system is pedagogically unsound. They believe, sometimes passionately, that children are able to learn much better outside of school than they can inside school. The third reason, which is one that appears to be more prominent in recent years among my cohort, is that the available school(s) are not a good fit for the child or the family. This could be because the child is struggling in school and not getting the needed attention. It could be because the child has learning difficulties that result in a classroom setting not being a good place to learn. It could be simply because classes are crowded, teachers are stressed, and there are more social problems in the school than in the past. Or it could be because the family moves around a lot (e.g. for one parent's job) and they are able to provide more stability and consistency to their children through home education.
These reasons for choosing home education are important to understanding what inspires me and what concerns me about home education.
I'm inspired that with home education:
At the same time, there are things that concern me about home education:
It is certainly the ideological issues that I mentioned in the first two bullets that concern me the most. I think the other two are more easily circumvented or dealt with.
In the United States, the National Center for Education Statistics says that 30 percent of American families that homeschool do so primarily for religious reasons. Realistically, I do not think that there is any reason why parents cannot teach their children about their faith outside of school hours. Therefore, choosing to school your children at home for religious reasons means that there are things that are taught in schools that you don't think your children should be exposed to. While there are probably some instances of inappropriate curricular content, I think that is better addressed by suggesting changes than pulling your children out. My guess is that in most cases, among those who homeschool primarily for religious reasons, there are perfectly reasonable and factual things taught as part of the school curriculum that the parents do not want their children to learn (evolution, birth control, homosexuality, other religious beliefs). This, I think, is problematic. Then, in the extreme, and in a very very small minority of cases, are parents who actively teach their children hatred (e.g. white supremacy, antisemitism). This is downright dangerous. Note: green text added above to clarify that I didn't mean "in most cases" among ALL homeschoolers, just among a specific subset.
I know that a lot of people view lack of socialization as a concern with regards to homeschooling. I don't see it that way. I think that most homeschooling families do participate in a variety of activities with friends and family that allows their children to be effectively socialized. The only times I worry about the socialization factor is where parents actively avoid socialization with certain types of people (races, religions, sexual orientations) for ideological reasons, but that goes to my previous point.
So where do I stand on schooling versus home education? I'm on the fence.
I believe more strongly in the child's right to an education than I do in the parent's right to raise their children any way they want. That said, I see many flaws in the current school system and the many benefits to home education. From that perspective, I don't blame parents for wanting to pull their children out for pedagogical reasons or just because it isn't working for their child or their family. But the ideological reasons, the ones that involve immersing your children in your beliefs and shielding them from others, are not my cup of tea.
I also believe in a civic duty to not be ignorant. This means that if you believe something, being exposed to other beliefs should help you to confirm your beliefs, rather than threaten them. Parents with specific belief systems should be prepared to explain to their children why they believe those things, rather than just pretending it is the only thing you possibly can believe. I also believe that to participate in society, as a citizen, people should have a basic understanding of history and social issues. This means that when you participate, as a citizen, and attempt to influence political decisions or address community issues, that you should have a basic understanding of how we got to where we are today. So if important things were left out, because a parent shielded their child from it or because the child chose not to learn it, that puts us at a greater risk of bad history repeating itself.
I don't think it matters if a child learns to read at age four or age nine. I don't care if a child learns to add and subtract at a desk or by doing real life activities. I don't think it makes a difference if you learn world geography first and then local geography later or the other way around. But I do believe that there are certain things that all citizens should learn. Those are the things that should help reduce hatred, war, and discrimination. Those are the things that allow children to learn about and assert their individual rights. So things like good sex ed programs, which significantly reduce teen pregnancy rates or things like comprehensive religious culture and ethics programs that teach children about different beliefs, viewpoints, family structures and relationships are extremely important. Parents who chose home education should be required to teach their children those things (and are in some jurisdictions).
In Germany, homeschooling is illegal. Children have to go to school. They go to schools where they learn about things like the World War II and the Holocaust, in hopes that history doesn't repeat itself. Despite those efforts, the neo-nazi scene is growing, with one in seven German teenagers (14.4%) having attitudes deemed highly xenophobic. Is the school environment contributing to the growth of the neo-nazi movement? Or would the movement be even bigger of right extremists were allowed to homeschool their children and teach them that the Holocaust is a lie and foreigners are ruining their lives?
My firm belief, and the reason I avoided writing this post for so long, is that there are no easy answers when it comes to education. Nothing is perfect, everything has risks, lots of things have to change.
The right and the duty to learn
Because this will influence much of what I say in this post, I should start with my thoughts on the right and the duty to learn.
I believe in and support the Convention on the Rights of the Child's recognition of every child's right to a free education. I believe that every child should have the opportunity to learn the basic things that they need to function in society. This includes, in my mind, practical skills like reading and math, but it also includes knowledge of the natural world, history, cultures, and societal issues. It includes learning and retaining facts, but also learning how to solve problems, debate issues, and apply critical thinking.
I also believe in the duty to learn. I do not think that ignorance is bliss. I believe that ignorance is dangerous and destructive. I believe it is each person's civic duty to learn certain things, whether they want to or not. I believe this is good for them and essential for a functioning society. I do not, however, believe that everyone has to learn everything that is currently taught in the current public school curriculum. Nor do I believe that people who successfully graduate from the public school system actually retain everything that is taught as part of its curriculum.
These thoughts on the right and duty to learn have a significant influence on my opinion of different education options for our children.
Schools
I have a love/hate relationship with schools. This is coloured by my own experience in school, my son's experience so far, and the reading I've done on the topic of schooling.
I love that schools:
- Provide a ready made opportunity for children to meet and play with a lot of children from different genders, cultures, and backgrounds. I don't have to worry about arranging and supervising play dates. I just send my kid to school and it magically falls together.
- Have teachers, equipment and resources to passionately and effectively engage my children on topics and in activities that I am not able to.
- Provide a safe environment for my children to be cared for while my partner and I pursue our careers and our own life learning.
- Ensure that all children learn history and are exposed to a wide variety of beliefs and viewpoints (at least where I live).
I hate that schools:
- Require all students to learn the same things and the same time, meaning that some will be interested, some will be bored, and some will struggle.
- Are seldom able to provide the right level of support for students who are struggling in a specific area and often push it back onto the parents in the form of extra homework for them to do with the child.
- Involve significant amounts of peer pressure, bullying, overexposure to things like commercialization, sexualization, and specific gender roles that I think are counter productive.
- Do not provide enough time for experimentation, play, outdoor time and self-directed learning.
- Often use grades, rewards, and punishments as a way to keep students in line because it is easier than encouraging self-motivation and teaching common sense and respect.
- Can be abused for the purposes of spreading propaganda to youth.
These are, of course, generalizations based on my experience with schools where I live. I know that this does not apply all of the time to all types of schools, although I suspect most of these things apply most of the time. Private schools and alternative schools (sometimes public, sometimes private) are popping up in a lot of areas attempt to capitalize on the strengths of schools and address their weaknesses. However, it only goes so far.
Home Education
While I used the term homeschooling in the title of this post, which is the most common term used in North America, after much consideration I chose the term home education for the title of this section. It is the term used in the United Kingdom and, in my mind, conceptually does a better job of incorporating the wide spectrum of home education options, ranging from homeschooling according to a specific curriculum all the way to pure unschooling. Another term that is used by some is life learning, which applies to children but also to adults and signifies the importance of learning being a life long process.
I don't have a love/hate relationship with home education in the same way that I do with schools. Perhaps this is because I don't have any direct experience with home education as the primary education of myself or my children. That said, I am passionate about life learning for myself and hope to be able to offer my children many opportunities to pursue their interests. Despite not having a specific love/hate relationship with home education, there are things about home education that I think are inspiring and there are things about home education that concern me.
Before I list those things, I want to address briefly some of the reasons that people choose home education. Both my experience with home educators and my research on home education (one good example) has suggested that there are two, or maybe three, primary motivations for choosing home education. The first is ideological. This is where parents embrace a different ideology than is taught in the curriculum and object to the curriculum because it doesn't teach enough about their own ideology and/or teaches things that are directly contrary to that ideology. The second reason for home educating is pedagogical. This is where the parents believe the structure or curriculum of the public education system is pedagogically unsound. They believe, sometimes passionately, that children are able to learn much better outside of school than they can inside school. The third reason, which is one that appears to be more prominent in recent years among my cohort, is that the available school(s) are not a good fit for the child or the family. This could be because the child is struggling in school and not getting the needed attention. It could be because the child has learning difficulties that result in a classroom setting not being a good place to learn. It could be simply because classes are crowded, teachers are stressed, and there are more social problems in the school than in the past. Or it could be because the family moves around a lot (e.g. for one parent's job) and they are able to provide more stability and consistency to their children through home education.
These reasons for choosing home education are important to understanding what inspires me and what concerns me about home education.
I'm inspired that with home education:
- Children often get much better academic results with much less time spent sitting at a desk, which gives them more time to spend outdoors, playing, and participating in all aspects of family life.
- Children are freer to pursue their own interests.
- There is more self-motivation and less coercion and force involved in learning. This, in turn, encourages children to learn more rather than getting the attitude that learning is boring and uncool.
- Children are not as exposed to negative cultural and societal influences.
- More parents take an active interest in their child's education.
- Children are free to learn at the time of day that best meshes with their personality and body rhythm, rather than according to the ringing of a bell.
At the same time, there are things that concern me about home education:
- I worry that parents who homeschool for ideological reasons may be shielding their children from the realities of the world (other belief systems, other cultures) and their selves (sexuality, gender issues, personal expression), which I believe is dangerous for the individual and for society.
- I worry that a small minority of parents who homeschool for ideological reasons may be doing so specifically to pass on discriminatory and hateful viewpoints to their children.
- I worry that parents who take their children out of school out of frustration with the school system (generally or for their specific child) may feel forced into home educating their children when really the school system should be changing and adapting to address those concerns.
- I worry that children who grow up under the guidance of the most gentle, patient, loving and inspiring parents without being exposed to teachers who are strict, ineffective, jerks, play favourites, or use coercive methods may not learn how to deal with those types of people before entering the workforce and may be at a disadvantage (although to be fair, a lot of today's schooled youth aren't dealing with them themselves anyway - they are getting mommy and daddy to do it for them).
It is certainly the ideological issues that I mentioned in the first two bullets that concern me the most. I think the other two are more easily circumvented or dealt with.
In the United States, the National Center for Education Statistics says that 30 percent of American families that homeschool do so primarily for religious reasons. Realistically, I do not think that there is any reason why parents cannot teach their children about their faith outside of school hours. Therefore, choosing to school your children at home for religious reasons means that there are things that are taught in schools that you don't think your children should be exposed to. While there are probably some instances of inappropriate curricular content, I think that is better addressed by suggesting changes than pulling your children out. My guess is that in most cases, among those who homeschool primarily for religious reasons, there are perfectly reasonable and factual things taught as part of the school curriculum that the parents do not want their children to learn (evolution, birth control, homosexuality, other religious beliefs). This, I think, is problematic. Then, in the extreme, and in a very very small minority of cases, are parents who actively teach their children hatred (e.g. white supremacy, antisemitism). This is downright dangerous. Note: green text added above to clarify that I didn't mean "in most cases" among ALL homeschoolers, just among a specific subset.
I know that a lot of people view lack of socialization as a concern with regards to homeschooling. I don't see it that way. I think that most homeschooling families do participate in a variety of activities with friends and family that allows their children to be effectively socialized. The only times I worry about the socialization factor is where parents actively avoid socialization with certain types of people (races, religions, sexual orientations) for ideological reasons, but that goes to my previous point.
Back to rights and duties
So where do I stand on schooling versus home education? I'm on the fence.
I believe more strongly in the child's right to an education than I do in the parent's right to raise their children any way they want. That said, I see many flaws in the current school system and the many benefits to home education. From that perspective, I don't blame parents for wanting to pull their children out for pedagogical reasons or just because it isn't working for their child or their family. But the ideological reasons, the ones that involve immersing your children in your beliefs and shielding them from others, are not my cup of tea.
I also believe in a civic duty to not be ignorant. This means that if you believe something, being exposed to other beliefs should help you to confirm your beliefs, rather than threaten them. Parents with specific belief systems should be prepared to explain to their children why they believe those things, rather than just pretending it is the only thing you possibly can believe. I also believe that to participate in society, as a citizen, people should have a basic understanding of history and social issues. This means that when you participate, as a citizen, and attempt to influence political decisions or address community issues, that you should have a basic understanding of how we got to where we are today. So if important things were left out, because a parent shielded their child from it or because the child chose not to learn it, that puts us at a greater risk of bad history repeating itself.
I don't think it matters if a child learns to read at age four or age nine. I don't care if a child learns to add and subtract at a desk or by doing real life activities. I don't think it makes a difference if you learn world geography first and then local geography later or the other way around. But I do believe that there are certain things that all citizens should learn. Those are the things that should help reduce hatred, war, and discrimination. Those are the things that allow children to learn about and assert their individual rights. So things like good sex ed programs, which significantly reduce teen pregnancy rates or things like comprehensive religious culture and ethics programs that teach children about different beliefs, viewpoints, family structures and relationships are extremely important. Parents who chose home education should be required to teach their children those things (and are in some jurisdictions).
In Germany, homeschooling is illegal. Children have to go to school. They go to schools where they learn about things like the World War II and the Holocaust, in hopes that history doesn't repeat itself. Despite those efforts, the neo-nazi scene is growing, with one in seven German teenagers (14.4%) having attitudes deemed highly xenophobic. Is the school environment contributing to the growth of the neo-nazi movement? Or would the movement be even bigger of right extremists were allowed to homeschool their children and teach them that the Holocaust is a lie and foreigners are ruining their lives?
My firm belief, and the reason I avoided writing this post for so long, is that there are no easy answers when it comes to education. Nothing is perfect, everything has risks, lots of things have to change.
Reader Comments (256)
Tracy:
Huh? I don't understand how the quote that you took from one of my comments puts all homeschoolers into a little box.
Ha! Okay I'm sorry but Tia and Sara- you just proved her point exactly!
I'm going to preface my comment by stating that I am a homeschooling proponent (possibly homeschooling my son as he starts K this fall) but I do share some of the same concerns the author has about homeschooling in general. I will only speak to the one issue discussed here for now.
I'll just say that as a family therapist, there is a developmental milestone at which a child can hold multiple truths. I teach my child that this is what we believe and this is our truth. That is what they believe and that is their truth. No one is right or wrong. This is a HUGE developmental milestone that a lot of people don't ever reach. Enter religious wars and bigotry (to oversimplify very complicated issues). Children who are only exposed to one world view (and it is presented as the ONE truth while everyone else is wrong and going to burn in hell) are handicapped in their development as they do not reach this milestone in childhood, and possibly never (like a lot of their parents).
That said, you guys are talking about teaching your religious beliefs as scientific fact. That is a whole different can of worms and the reason I have concerns about homeschooling in general, even though I do believe it is a great option for many families. You are homeschooling your kids so no one tells them that species evolve because it conflicts with your belief that God designed you. Your child could be the scientist that discovered the cure to cancer but because you refused to teach him/her modern science because it undermines YOUR (not their) religious beliefs does the world a disservice.
Sorry for probably eliciting a lot more of these fringe comments from my reply phdinparenting but I don't have to dance around their feelings as this is not my blog :)
Rebecca - you and Alfie said it very well.
And I have to say, it's amazing how quickly my "secure base" children are raring to go and get 'em out there in the big wide "unfair", "brutal" etc. world.
Birth control IS an option for your daughter! You can't say birth control is a theory and you don't believe in it. You can say you don't want her to use it and discuss with her your beliefs in the context of the world and your society and what is out there. But birth control is real and it is an option for your daughter whether you like it or not.
Okay seriously, I'm done commenting. Jeez phdinparenting- your commenters keep sucking me in to reply!
Rebecca:
I am a fan of Alfie's writing too. I certainly believe that it is important for me to show Unconditional Love to my children in order for them to have that secure home base and because it is the type of relationship that I want to have with my children.
That said, I don't think that everyone my children will deal with as leaders, authority figures, colleagues, or friends need to show them that same type of unconditional love. I'm not suggesting I'm going to sign my children up to have a babysitter or a teacher who abuses them because they BGUTI. I am, however, suggesting that a lot of people are going to relate to my child in a different way than I will and I do think that there is an stage at which it is developmentally appropriate for them to start learning how to handle different people/different styles assertively and confidently.
Again, I do think that a lot of homeschooling families do have ways that they expose their children to those types of situations anyway and even if they don't, it isn't going to make or break that child's life. It is a very small issue for me and one that many of you have addressed very well.
You're also assuming that all religious people believe that one view of evolution/creationism. Whereas it's usually more complicated than that. None of the homeschooling families I know leave out any topics covered in public school, they teach that some people believe in creationism and others believe in evolution. And there are a vast number of people, like myself, that believe in a combination of the two. I myself came very close to going to grad school for evolutionary biology because I was interested in studying it from the POV of a religious person who also believes in God. As I stated in another comment, my child will go to a private school where he will learn both, and then he'll come home and we'll talk about what his father and I believe. Please don't lump all religious people into one group.
Idzie:
I understand, sympathize with, and respect your concerns, but don't have a good solution to propose. I agree that activism, being outspoken on important issues, community building and more are essential and are excellent tools. I do a lot of that here on this blog and in other places. I believe it is critical. But beyond that I do think there is a role for the government in terms of trying to protect oppressed groups, ensure people's rights are upheld, etc. As an anarchist, you probably feel differently and I'll admit that I need to go off and do some life learning on the anarchist approach to dealing with issues like oppression and discrimination.
"I don’t see how it would be possible, if one subscribed to a faith, NOT to teach one’s children that it is the true faith, and therefore “better” than another."
It is absolutely possible. My children have learned that my faith is right for me, but their father has no faith and that is right for him. And the grandparents have their faith and that is right for them. They don't need to be told that one faith is right and true over every other, jst that each individual has their own truth to find.
Just for clarification, I never said that I thought birth control was a "theory". And I never suggested that birth control was not an option for my daughter. Becoming a heroin user or a prostitute are also options for my daughter, it doesn't mean I need to condone them or teach her that they are good choices for her to make. I know the Catholic opposition to birth control is a fringe belief (even among Catholics!) but it is a core tenant of our faith - teaching my daughter that birth control is morally acceptable and something that everyone needs to consider goes against this faith. Really, I was just pointing out that what is reasonable to some is outrageous to others. I don't expect the schools to teach my faith! Birth control is a pervasive part of our society, of course it is going to be taught in our schools!
There seems to be the assumption that because I want to teach my daughter (and my son) that birth control is immoral, that I am ignorant and sheltering, a broad generalization that is completely untrue. If I chose to teach my children that eating meat was immoral (as many do), I don't think many would consider me ignorant and sheltering, simply because the majority of our society believes otherwise...
Also, to the comment: "I don’t see how it would be possible, if one subscribed to a faith, NOT to teach one’s children that it is the true faith, and therefore “better” than another." I completely disagree with this. I do teach my children my "truth" and I truly hope that they will come to share the same truth someday. But I don't believe that anyone who doesn't share my truth is "lesser" or damned, that is not for me to judge. Believing in "one truth" doesn't necessitate disparaging the truth of others. Faith and tolerance can go hand in hand, although I would agree they often don't!
Caveat: I'm a homeschooler (as much as one can be with a 1 year old - but my intention has always been to homeschool).
I wanted to make two points. First, if you go to public school it is quite possible to never learn about evolution (in the US at least). In my experience it was covered in HS biology which not everyone took and kids often were exempted from that part of the class (just as others were exempted from dissection for ethical reasons). I don't really think that going to school and being exposed to different ideologies neccessarily means a more open minded person. If they are learning at home that evolution - Godlessness then they might be just as biased in the end.
Second, as a Christian and a scientist (physicist) I always find the evolution/creation debate perplexing. I have no trouble believing entirely in the scientific theory of evolution and in a creator. Evolution - the scientific theory - as taught in college is not anti-creator. That isn't the point at all. Evolution is a theory of speciation based on observable facts (such as natural selection, the fossil record, etc.). I guess I'm just echoing Karyis - not all Christians think humans rode dinosaurs and the Earth is 4,000 years old. (not implying that this is what Annie was saying)
My reason for homeschooling is almost 100% pedagogical, however, I disagree with Annie's assessment of the need to learn history. Perhaps Canada is doing it much better than here in the states but the revisionist, selective history taught here by education boards and textbook publishers is one of my major reasons for wanting to homeschool. I remember getting to college and taking a history class and being just totally floored at the lies we were taught. HS history was complete (pardon my language) bullshit aimed to make us all love our country but it was lies. How could we have learned that Mao = bad because he was a communist and Chaing Kai Sheck = good because he wasn't? Chaing was a brutal murderer and we were taught he was good because it enforced that communism was bad. How about learning about the transcontinental railroad and NEVER being told that it was built by chinese slaves? The final straw for me was seeing the movie Schindler's List - I just can't believe how much time we spent in HS on WWII and never heard of a single "good" german.
I don't want Aellyn to love her country because she blindly believes "Lincoln freed the slaves" - cue patriotic music - I want her to know that he was a flawed man that issued the emancipation proclamation in order to declare martial law. Patriotism and civic responsibility is much better when it is earned through real and honest dialog about the good and the bad of our history. Public schools in the US are NOT DOING THIS - even close. The "history" they are learning is sexist, racist, homophobic, etc.
Like I said, maybe Canada is different. I wonder about Germany. With its checkered past do they teach patriotism through only highlighting the good or do the students graduate high school (or equivalent) with a deeper understanding of the mistakes of the past and how not to repeat them? I'd be interested to know.
*note, I'm not saying that 3rd graders need to learn about such deep topics - age appropriate learning when kids are capable of higher moral reasoning (Piaget's stages perhaps?)
"the children of parents who care about education and learning- no matter what educational setting the children spend their days in- will generally have kids who turn out to be active, engaged, learning people."
This is so true isn't it? I went to public schools and I got a great education because my parents are life long learners and were engaged in my education.
This is the point I was trying to make about history in the US above. Unfortunately, as Texas is such a large state their text book choices can effect children all over the US. It is just sickening. Maybe Canada is doing better?
But some people's faith specifically do not believe that "each individual has their own truth to find." This is called moral relativism, which some believe it - that each person has their own truth and finding it is the spiritual journey. However, many people do not believe in relativism but instead believe that there is one truth.
I don't think there is anything wrong with teaching my child that X is the one truth as long as a) you teach that others feel differently and b) to always have empathy and respect for others' opinions. (and I'll add c) that you respect and love your child when they choose a different path even if you don't think it is "truth")
I mean, do you really care if I teach my child that Christianity is the One True Faith? Or are you more (and rightly) worried that I'll teach her to hate and discriminate against others?
Annie I don't think it is possible to believe in God and not present it as truth. Christianity does not leave room for that type of relativism so I have to disagree with "They just shouldn’t present it as the truth. They should present it as a belief."
As I said in another reply (gosh, this post is good it is more like a discussion board!) why should you care if I believe my faith is TRUTH and thereby that your belief is FALSE? The problem would come if I translated my belief that my way is better into treating you as if I think that makes me a better person than you. Don't we often talk about this same thing with lactivism? I think formula is the bad choice but I don't think formula feeders are bad people. I will certainly raise my daughter to believe that breast is the "only way to go" but that she should always show respect and empathy to people with a different choice.
Maybe that is a bad example because breast is best has facts behind it. How about vaccination? I believe that vaccinating is a very poor choice for overall health and I'll pass my overall beliefs in health to my daughter but also teach her to respect others' views.
I agree so much Kayris. When I was 7 years old and decided I "didn't want to go to church" anymore that was not an option for my parents. I was raised that Christianity was truth. As adults I am a Christian and my sister is an atheist. My parents didn't disown her and our family events are not riddled with jamming our beliefs down her throat. On the contrary we have excellent conversations about topics of faith, fact, truth, etc. because most importantly we were taught to respect other peoples' ideas and thoughts. We actually come to consensus on so many things!
As far as that breeding hatred and discrimination I guess we were also raised to believe that judiasm is wrong (not wrong as in bad but not "truth") but we certainly are NOT anti-Semites. Hating or discriminating against Jewish people would be the furthest thing from the way we were raised.
I feel like you are conflating teaching truth with harboring hatred.
Sorry I keep commenting so much - this is truly a wonderful and thought provoking post! Thank you for opening this particular can of worms! :)
This is what Jana is saying. B/c TX and CA effect textbooks that are used nationwide, most texts are biased one way or the other. Although, due to CA's recent budgetary woes, TX will most likely dominate the field for some time. This is, of course, to say nothing of the cross-marketing that is the newest trend in textbooks...DK and Nat Geo breakout boxes and the like. Or the evolution from notetaking, to use of a computer-linked projector with a powerpoint, to handing out photocopies of the powerpoint instead of having to students take notes, to handing out the powerpoint instead of having a text at all. That's now very common here in upstate NY, particularly for science and history. Also, there's only one high school in our county that still uses grammar and vocabulary texts, and it's a private Catholic school.
Affects. Bargle.
Why do you have the right to say that? As others have said, moral relativism is antithetical to some belief systems. Religious folk that have spoken out against it include Catholics, Calvinists...and Buddhists. My religion is comparatively quite liberal, but it seems clear to me that if you refute a parent's right to teach his or her religious beliefs as truth, at least in the United States, you are violating the Constitution. Also, I do not see why a person cannot teach a course in comparative religions and still say, "I believe this one to be the truth." A spirited discussion as to why would certainly be much more useful to a child's intellectual development than insisting that all belief systems are equal.
I'm pretty sure that's what she said.
I homeschool for ideological reasons, you could say. I live in a county which, in 2002, wanted to have stickers on science textbooks that read:
"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."
I homeschool, in part, because I love evolution. I homeschool because I want to make sure that if any of my children are anything other than straight, they already know about the history of the gay rights movement. These are not the only reasons I homeschool, but would I consider them religious or moral issues? Yes.
Since these agree with what you feel should be taught, does that mean my ideological homeschooling is okay, but others is not? Must we have a litmus test as to political beliefs?
As far as hate. I've heard far more racist comments from the girls in my former Girl Scout troop, public and private schooled all, except my own child, than from the most conservative, creationist homeschoolers.
(Also, my children have already developed the skill of bowing out of conversation when extreme political differences arise, which is definitely a skill I did not learn in my institutional schooling. Things that make you go hmmm)
Also--I don't know how it works in Canada or in other countries, but in my state, homeschooling is very regulated. Parents are required to present their children for testing from time to time, follow an approved curriculum, etc etc etc. That will differ from state to state, as some have very strict regs and others have almost none, but it is a lot harder to completely leave out a subject than it sounds.
Paige--if you're ever in Baltimore, please send me an email. I could spend all day talking about evolution and creationism, it's a topic that has always fascinated me, and I always love to talk to other scientists who are also people of faith.
Paige is right, Christianity teaches that the beliefs ARE truth, despite lack of scientific proof. That's why it's called faith. (And, off topic, there are a number of books available providing scientific proof in religious matters. I recently read "The Case For Christ" which examines how the Bible was translated, sometimes inaccurately, and shows evidence that Jesus Christ was a real person.)
I've been thinking about this post and the comments all day. And perhaps I'm wrong, but the impression I get is that it's not homeschooling that you have a problem with, it's religious people using homeschooling as a platform to teach religious dogma that you disagree with. And I'm wondering why you object so strongly. How does it affect you or your children if someone else chooses to teach their kids that evolution does not exist? That's not something I personally believe but it's none of my business if someone else teaches that. I feel like you're trying to say that religious arguments lead to close-minded hateful people, and that's quite a stretch.
Agreed Summer.
Paige:
You covered a lot of ground in that comment. Not sure I can do it justice in the minimal time I have available this morning, but I'll touch on a few key points.
1) I know that not all Christians deny evolution. I am thankful for that. It is the ones that deny evolution that I think have the potential to do harm. It is like teaching people that the world is flat.
2) I think Canada is different from the United States and I didn't realize HOW different until the discussion on this post. However, it is far from perfect.
3) In Germany there is no teaching of "patriotism" like in the United States. There is NO glory assigned to Germany's past. Germans are taught the facts of history and they are taught about the very shameful history of their country. That is perhaps hard for Americans to understand, but the type of nationalism that is so prevalent in the United States is not a factor in all countries and certainly not in Germany outside of radical illegal groups.
jennifer:
That is where there is an issue of semantics, I guess. To me "truth" is a fact that has been verified. That is why I have a problem with people presenting their beliefs as truth. If you think there can be multiple truths on the same issue, then I guess we disagree with the definition of truth. I think there can be different beliefs in areas where there is no verified truth.
Kayris:
A reply to a few of your comments/questions:
You said: Paige is right, Christianity teaches that the beliefs ARE truth, despite lack of scientific proof. That’s why it’s called faith.
As I explained in another comment, I don't see truth and faith as synonymous. Truth = verifiable fact. Faith = something I believe in when there is no verifiable fact. Truth = the earth is round. Faith = I believe there is no God, you believe there is one. We can have faith in different things, without pretending that they are facts.
You said: And perhaps I’m wrong, but the impression I get is that it’s not homeschooling that you have a problem with, it’s religious people using homeschooling as a platform to teach religious dogma that you disagree with.
I don't have a problem with homeschooling any more than I have a problem with public schools. I pointed out benefits and drawbacks to both in my post. However, the comments seem to have honed in on my critiques of homeschooling. I do have a problem with religious people using homeschooling as a platform to teach religious dogma as fact to the exclusion of verified facts. Unfortunately I have learned that it seems a lot of American schools do this too, so I would have the same objection to them.
You said: How does it affect you or your children if someone else chooses to teach their kids that evolution does not exist? That’s not something I personally believe but it’s none of my business if someone else teaches that. I feel like you’re trying to say that religious arguments lead to close-minded hateful people, and that’s quite a stretch.
First, you've been reading my blog long enough that you should know that I care about more than just my children. I care about society. Why would I bother with, for example, my breastfeeding advocacy if I only cared about my children. They have both weaned, so if I only cared about then, I could just shut up about it now. the
Second, the reason that it matters if other people's children grow up learning that evolution doesn't exist (or any of the other "truths" that aren't really true) is that those children grow up to be politicians, business leaders, teachers, celebrities, and so on. So someone that grows up being taught that a homosexual lifestyle is wrong and that isn't presented with any alternative theory would never consider changing discriminatory laws that prevent homosexuals from marrying. Someone who believes less in science and more in "the will of God" may be less likely to consider public policies or invest in science that would address some of the ills that are affecting our planet (e.g. global warming). People who believe that their beliefs are the truth have a history of starting wars against those who have different beliefs. I could go on, but I don't have the time this morning. Perhaps that will be the topic of another post.
Saille:
I'm amused that you question my right to say something and then go on to question why I would refute a parent's right to teach his or her religious beliefs as truth. Are you advocating for or against freedom of speech?
I think it is excellent if parents teach comparative religion. If they then want to say "I believe this one to be the truth", that is fine and appropriate too. The "I believe" not "I know" is critical to that sentence. I object when they do not teach comparative religion and simply say "this is the truth." There is a big difference, in my opinion, between explaining your beliefs to your children and teaching them as the factual truth.
My husband was homeschooled by his parents for religious reasons and still feels like he was educationally and socially crippled by the experience. I am a graduate student in education and am compelled by the arguments for secular/unschooling: I have 2 young children and worry for their schooling experiences in overcrowded schools with few opportunities for art/music, and standardized curricula. I did/do very well in school and in some ways can't imagine life without it, but I'm not wild about the whole institutionalization of education. I am not sure what we will do, or what our lifestyle will allow us to do, when the time comes to enroll our kids in school. I think it will depend on where we live and the quality of our local school(s) and the class sizes. Fortunately, if my children are homeschooled, it will be by highly educated, feminist, anti-racist parents !
I agree, Idzie. In fact, in my experience of raising two unschooled from birth teens, they have been more politically active than any of their school friends. It's a huge assumption (bias, prejudice?) to assert that home educated families are not discussing world history, race, ethnicity and cultural issues, along with sexuality, gender issues and the world's religions.
Exactly, Rebecca. So many of these comments have been about whether one could be "patient enough to teach", when in fact, that has little to do with it. If any value had to be assigned to the parent/child dynamic, I think it should be trust. Learning to trust in your child's ability to learn is the big hurdle most folks deal with. Which brings me to this: “I believe more strongly in the child’s right to an education than I do in the parent’s right to raise their children any way they want.” I find this interesting because we are unschooling with our children by extension of our attatchment parenting, interconnected, continuum beliefs. At preschool age, our children were still nursing. When our daughter was five it seemed unnatural and unreasonable to separate her from not only her parents, but her younger sibling as well. I think the amount of grief and loss a sibling suffers when the other is removed from the home for 8 hours a day must be one of the most painful things a child can endure, but it is rarely considered. When our son was five, we knew it would not be appropriate to send either to school, as they were thriving at home (in the world) and with each other. Today, I am so thankful that we listened to and learned to trust our children and that we saw the value of preserving their attatchment to one another, now that I see how close and loving they are at 11 and 13. They are thriving. We are thriving with them. Nothing about unschooling has been stifling, limited or oppressive. Because of their strong foundation for love and trust within their immediate family, they are confident, questioning, mindful and kind, out in the world (ie, attatchment parenting doesn't end at toddlerhood.) So yes, I'm raising our children the way I want, but more importantly, I'm raising our children the way they want.
This is what I've been trying to get at. You can't choose which ideology is okay to teach and which is not. And as a non-religious person, you can't personally know how vitally important faith can be to someone. The problem I have with telling people what they can and can't teach their children is you take away their rights as parents and you take away religious freedom. Fringe Catholic teach that the only acceptable form of birth control is FAM, used within a marriage, to space children. I don't agree and you clearly don't agree, but you can't take away a person's right to teach their kids that, while allowing someone else to teach a different religious argument. Religious people believe that their dogma IS fact, despite the fact that you won't find it in any textbook. I'd love it if people never learned that all Americans should be blown up or women should be ruled by their husbands or that alcohol will lead you to the devil and porn. But censoring religious teachings is a sticky issue, and your vision of what children should learn will differ, sometimes drastically, from someone else's.
You completely missed my point. I agreed, one could have a faith and yet teach their children to respect the faiths of others, and that all people are equal no matter what they believe. I certainly never suggested anything about teaching children that non-believers are damned, or even that they'd teach their children those people were wrong! What I have a hard time grasping is, if one subscribes to a faith, wouldn't one believe it was The Truth, and therefore teach their children that? Otherwise, I guess I don't see the point? That's a big reason why I'm not raising my children in a particular faith -- I don't believe enough to pass on any one religion. I am however still teaching them that there are many belief systems out there, and that they can learn about those faiths and choose to believe what speaks to them (or not to believe, as the case may be). And always, that they should treat others as they wish to be treated.
"In order for children to learn to deal with mistreatment of themselves or others by peers or a person in authority, someone has to model the behavior. In the average school setting, no one’s doing that."
Well said!
Rachel, I'm afraid I found on the contrary that PhDinParenting actually proved Tia's and Sara's points -- that people who would have schools teach evolution but not intelligent design would have them teach it as a stronger theory than it is.
The problem is that evolution, at least as a description of where life came from, is just a theory -- a set of inferences based on some observable facts. The "faith" that Sara describes is the unshakable confidence that many scientists have in this theory when in fact we cannot prove that our observations necessarily imply that this is how life came to be. As a mathemetician, I find the allegiance that some have to evolution to be akin to faith. Where is the logical proof that this is the only possible way that events could have taken place millions of years ago?
For what it's worth, evolution vs. creation is nowhere on my radar when I think about my reasons for homeschooling. But I do respect others who choose to homeschool on account of this issue.
Thank you, Paige -- this expresses my thoughts very well.
As a Christian, I believe that God exists -- that he really and truly exists, in a way that can't be wished away. I also believe that it is important for me to love and respect people whether or not they believe in God.
As a citizen of a free country, I have the right not only to believe this, but also to express this view -- and that includes the right to express that view to my children. How do you draw the line between free speech and teaching your children what you believe?
Once again thanks for this post. I don't want you to construe my arguing repeatedly as a lack of respect for this wonderful discussion. :)
"So someone that grows up being taught that a homosexual lifestyle is wrong and that isn’t presented with any alternative theory would never consider changing discriminatory laws that prevent homosexuals from marrying. "
Unfortunately, I can see all too well why you would think this. It is shameful sometimes to be a christian (little "c" for what people do for it, I'm never ashamed to be a Christian) because of what some people do with it. I'm not surprised you said this because with many people who define as christians this is so true. However, it saddens me beyond reason because it is NOT TRUE for me and for many Christians I know.
Now, for the record, I personally am not a Bible literalist so I don't believe that homosexuality is a sin (I'm also "pro-choice" which makes me hated in some circles) but here's the thing. Even if I DID think homosexuality is a sin IT DOES NOT FOLLOW that I would then be less inclined to care about the HUMAN FREEDOM TO MARRY WHO ONE WISHES. I believe that abortion is a sin, however, I understand that my stance is based on MY truth and I 100% and COMPLETELY support people's rights to access abortion and make their own moral choice. Honestly, 100%. Yes, I'm a Christian that has marched in parades for gay rights and donated money to pro-choice groups.
So, while I understand why you think this way (due to horrible real life examples) it is still stereotyping to conflate teaching religious dogma with discrimination/lack of societaly change/or ignorance.
Not to get all religious (too late, huh?) but I don't recall Christ marching on Rome to change the laws. I'm pretty darn sure he wouldn't have been outside the front of an abortion clinic with a picket sign but rather would have been waiting outside the back door to offer comfort to the women leaving.
I have no desire (nor do I think it would be productive, nor do I think it is in line with the teachings of Christ) to LEGISLATE or in any other way force MY TRUTH on anyone else. To do so is discriminatory and hateful and distinctly unChristian.
Now the real point I think your making is...for those who DO teach a hate-based curriculum - homeschooling can exacerbate the problem by not exposing those children to alternative viewpoints. I agree with you here. However, I think any legislation that restricts homeschooling would only hurt the 99% of homeschoolers who are NOT doing it for these reasons in order to control the 1% of bad eggs. And, honestly, there is no law in the world that will get rid of all the bad eggs.
Thanks for replying to this point. I'm glad to hear that Germany does not teach a brainwashing viewpoint of nationalism as the US does. This is one of the main reasons I'll be homeschooling. Teaching patriotism without CRITICAL THOUGHT and an honest look at the good and the bad is, in my opinion, a breeding ground for the type of extermeism and hate mongering that you are worried about some homeschoolers teaching.
Wish I could read through all the previous comments... ack. I've considered homeschooling for our kids when they're old enough for it, but I'm honestly just not sure I have it in me. I imagine that to be your child's teacher you have to have such vast reserves of patience, motivation and drive, and I'm not sure I would do the job justice.
I'm hoping my 2yo can start going to a Montessori preschool in the next year or 2. I would *love* for him to then attend a Montessori elementary program, as well, but that will depend on if such a program is available and if we can afford it. I personally feel that the Montessori approach eliminates almost all of the concerns you listed as negatives about schools.
Lakota,
Evolution has in fact been directly observed. The fact that you don't seem to have even a basic understanding of evolution, or that you don't know what "theory" means in the scientific context is only proving Annie's assertion. And also, scary.
Marcy, I think Montessori programs are wonderful! Locally, we have a public charter school that has a special Montessori preschool AND elementary program. It is mainly a modified homeschool program where the students come in 2 or 3 days a week for classes together and the parents teach the other days, but they also have a full 4 or 5 day program if that works better for the parents and kids. A friend of mine is doing the 4-day program and loves it! And it's free!!! If I were not so committed to my Classical approach for my family, that is what I would do... or if I had to return to work. Not sure where you are geographically, but it could be something to look for. I just saw your comment and thought I'd share. :)
Oh, and also... if you still want to consider homeschooling, I'm sure you could do it! It does require a special brand of patience, I think. I admire "professional" teachers so much more now that I homeschool. It's humbling. But it also is tons of fun!
Amy:
I have a high regards for unschooling (and obviously for attachment parenting, extended breastfeeding, etc.) and I certainly don't disagree with any of your points in that regard. I think it is excellent that you and other unschooling families are raising your children with a great deal of respect for their needs, desires and interests. I think that is fabulous.
When I express any of my own concerns regarding patience, I am referring purely to my own limitations. I would never project that onto other families and suggest that they wouldn't have the patience for it. Perhaps it is a reflection of me or my children's personalities or a combination of both, but I am finding my current experience being at home with them full time to be very trying. I do try to take an unschooling approach when I am with my children, which is part-time at home and full-time at the moment. But I find it physically and emotionally draining to do it full-time. They have so many questions and so many interests and so many needs, yet their needs rarely seem to be compatible (one wants to go one way and the other wants to go the other) and neither of them is at an age where they can be sufficiently independent in their learning. Maybe I will feel differently in a few years time, but I'm finding these ages very challenging.
Paige:
I agree that teaching religious dogma does not automatically lead to discrimination, lack of social change, and ignorance. But I do think that it significantly increases the chances of it.
Now the real point I think your making is...for those who DO teach a hate-based curriculum - homeschooling can exacerbate the problem by not exposing those children to alternative viewpoints. I agree with you here. However, I think any legislation that restricts homeschooling would only hurt the 99% of homeschoolers who are NOT doing it for these reasons in order to control the 1% of bad eggs. And, honestly, there is no law in the world that will get rid of all the bad eggs.
This is exactly the point I was trying to make. While I would hazard a guess that it is more than 1% of homeschoolers who fit into the "bad egg" category, I certainly know that it is not the majority of them. For that reason, I do think that homeschooling is primarily a very positive thing.
Laura:
How do I draw the line?
For starters, Canadians have a different definition or interpretation of free speech than Americans do. Free speech in Canada does not include hate speech. So that is one place where I draw the distinction.
With regards to religious beliefs, I think that parents have the right to tell their children what they want. However, I also think that those children have a right to be exposed to other viewpoints.
I certainly want to pass some of my values on to my children, but I think that the best way to do that is by modeling those values and by talking about them, not by shielding them from other viewpoints.
Kayris:
With regards to which ideology is okay to teach and which is not:
Canada's constitution guarantees freedom of speech, but places a limit on it. Incitement of hatred of people based on their colour, race, religion, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation prohibited. I support this limitation (but it is a contentious one).
Beyond that, it gets more into the realm of ethical/unethical than legal/illegal. I don't think it is ethical to present things to children as fact (truth) if they are not facts and simply beliefs. What if I am claustrophobic and truly believe that I will suffocate in an enclosed space? Should I tell my children they will die if they go into an elevator? Or should I explain why I am scared, but also tell them that many, many other people use elevators every day without any problem. It wouldn't be illegal for me to tell my children that they will die if they go into an elevator, but I think it would be unethical to do so. I think that faith, beliefs, and fears are all part of the human experience and are very personal. While I believe in the right to share your faith, beliefs, and fears with others, I think that you are encroaching on THEIR religious freedom when you present YOUR beliefs as truth.
great post. I hate to sound snobbish but one of my fears about homeschooling is that the parent isn't capable of teaching some of the more advanced science and math concepts once kids get to high school age. I really don't think I would have got my A levels in maths, Chemistry and Biology if my parents had been my teachers, smart though they are. Maybe I'm underestimating the dedication of these parents (or overestimating the abilities of the schoolteachers), but I don't believe that the averagely educated parent (or even the above averagely educated parent) has the breadth of knowledge to home educate right through high school.
geekymummy:
Do you think you would have been able to teach it to yourself? To seek out resources with the support of your parents to learn it? I've learned a great many things in my life that were never taught to me. I taught myself most of the History of Quebec and Canada course that is taught in our high schools because I was overseas during the year that course was taught and I couldn't have graduated without passing the provincial exam. I taught myself to write Japanese. I taught myself MBA level accounting because the professor was useless.
I love this speech called Being Honest About Ignorance and think it is relevant to the discussion here:
http://www.american.com/archive/2007/may-0507/jhu-commencement-address
It may well make it into a follow-up post on the topic.
My son led me to home ed, too! And for me, too, it turned out to be one of the best things I've done. I had not imagined home ed for my family, because I didn't think I knew enough and because I am a single mom and didn't think I could choose home ed. In the end I took all 4 kids out of school, and like natural childbirth and breastfeeding it all came together organically and feels perfect. Lawrence is now 16. He reads Asimov and Dumas for fun; studies theoretical physics because "it is the most profoundly fascinating subject [he has] ever encountered;" and is a funny, affectionate companion to me and his 3 sisters. Best of wishes to the 3 of you!
it is fascinating to read these posts. I agree with PhDip that the teaching of Science crippled by fundamentalist Christian beliefs is a real problem in religious homeschooling. The popular argument put forth here by Laura in particular, that is, that evolution is "just a theory," is proof of the ignorance taught in fundamentalist Christian circles. Other topics in Science that are also "just theories" include gravity, electricity, and magnetism. Science is made up of theories. This doesn't mean that they are untrue or unproven; it is simply how Science is expressed. There is overwhelming proof for these accepted theories. There is none at all for ideas like creationism.
Only magical notions like that of the hand of God can explain natural phenomena as thoroughly, neatly and concisely as these theories can. Religious people who are not locked into fundamentalism can appreciate that God is not disproven by Science: isn't He/She even more amazing for having come up with these incredible mechanisms for life on Earth?
Fortunately for society, when the kids grow up and move out they are exposed to the viewpoints their parents tried to block, and many overcome their early indoctrination. However, there is no question in my mind that the fundamentalist influence is the reason for America's weakness in Science and technology. Our students, both in public schools and in fundamentalist homschooling families, are handicapped in these areas.
Before I started teaching my children at home, I was worried that I didn't have sufficient command of all the necessary material, and that teaching my kids might set up a relationship as uncomfortable as mine was with my father when he tried to help me with homework. I would rather fail at something than ask my father to help me--it was that bad.
At first, I was just going to try teaching my son, for whom school was never going to fit. Then his big sister, with whom I had a strained relationship, wanted to study with us (Greek Mythology, the explorers, etc.) rather than do the rote work she was given. She couldn't keep up with all of it, so I took her out of school. To my surprise, my relationship with Nell began improving, as did her relationships with her 3 siblings. The next time my sister visited, she remarked on the changes, and told me that she now supported my decision to educate the kids at home wholeheartedly. She had been opposed.
Over the years, I have indeed run into subjects that I could not have taught as if I were a classroom teacher; however, as it turns out teaching at home is quite different. We have not encountered anything we could not address. The children are expert at finding resources for subjects that interest them or those that give them trouble. And they are internally motivated to seek them out and exploit them. At first I was scared because I couldn't afford boxed curriculum, but we soon became unschoolers. Our learning process is very organic--learning just comes naturally to kids who are not forced. They are much better educated now than I was at their ages.
My relationships with all 4 children, now aged 14-18, have remained warm and open. They talk to me about their lives, both inner and outer. They are bright, articulate, and interesting. They are not sad, angry or sullen (as I was at their ages); and though they are not preternaturally good (as was my sister), they do not rebel, smoke, drink or use other substances, seek early sexual experience, break rules, or otherwise act like the usual idea of teenagers. I enjoy being with them, and they like being with each other.
I would encourage anyone who is curious about home education to consider it seriously and do some reading on the subject. Don't give it up as out of your reach! It may be the natural next step for your family.